On 8/4/2011 12:34, Warp wrote:
>    So I was answering the question of why emacs has traditionally been
> considered a pretty badass program by unix freaks for most of computing
> history.

That's fair. But that certainly wasn't implied by the video you linked to. 
Hence my confusion. :-)

And many other editors (like vi) of the time could handle similar stuff, yes.

I'll certainly agree that emacs is powerful for a text editor, and in the 
70s and 80s it was a pretty good powerful solution for working with text 
from a nerd-programmer point of view.

>    And also, most text editors (even commercial ones) *can't* do the same
> things as emacs can.

VIM macros are turing complete, *and* it can shell out parts of the code to 
other tasks, which is far more Unixy than emacs' approach, methinks. I guess 
maybe I just haven't used crappy editors enough to be hindered by the ones 
that don't have macros.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   How come I never get only one kudo?

Post a reply to this message